http://conference.ifla.org/ifla78 Date submitted: 17 May 2012 An Evaluation of the Functionality and Accessibility of E- Readers for Individuals with Print Disabilities: Phase One Stephanie Maatta, Ph.D. Asst. Professor Wayne State University School of Library & Information Science Laurie J. Bonnici, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, University of Alabama School of Library & Information Science Session: Session 103 — Open source technology and mobile devices use and accessibilitty — Information Technology with Library and Research Services for Parliaments Abstract: This study explores the functionality and usability of e-readers, including the Apple iPad 2G, Amazon’s Kindle Fire, and Barnes and Noble’s NOOK Table. The study is being conducted in two phases to fully explore and examine accessibility features and functions of the e-reader devices and their applicability to individuals with print disabilities. Phase One established a baseline of understanding about what features are available and how the features work on the e-readers. Phase Two will analyze the same features and functions as employed by individuals with visual impairment and who use adaptive technologies to engage with written works, including books, magazines, and newspapers. Phase One concludes that in their current iterations each of the three e-readers has limitations and may not be considered universally accessible. Introduction In 2011, the Association of American Publishers ranked electronic books (e-books) as the top sellers among trade categories for all books.1 In part this was due to the surge in the availability of affordable e-reader devices, including Apple’s iPad, Amazon’s Kindle, and Barnes and Noble’s NOOK. These second generation e-readers featured E-ink, resembling print pages, along with color images, longer battery life, and some voice-over options. Magazines and illustrated books were created in electronic formats readable on the second 1 Andi Sporkin. 2011. “Popularity of Books in Digital Platforms Continues to Grow, According to AAP Publishers February 2011 Sales Report.” Association of American Publishers. Retrieved from http://www.publishers.org/press/30/ on January 27, 2012. 1 generation devices, making a much wider range of print resources available in digital formats. The third iteration of e-readers, in the form of tablets similar to the iPad, hit the consumer marketplace in late 2011 and early 2012 with better than expected sales and high visibility. Similar to earlier devices, the tablets are affordable, portable, and offer numerous applications for computing and social networking. Along with applications for e-reading, the tablets allow users to watch movies, listen to audio, and play games. The Pew Research Center reports that tablet ownership nearly doubled during the 2011 winter holiday season, and that 29% of American adults own at least one e-reader device.2 Public and academic libraries and the primary/secondary educational system in the United States hurried to embrace the new technologies, beginning in 2009 and 2010, to complement access to books and other resources and meet the demands of their constituents. Many institutions had the notion that e-books would be a low-cost solution to spiraling costs of library books, textbooks, and journals – particularly for texts that become outdated quickly – and address the increasing shortage of shelf space in physical library buildings. Several libraries and school systems, such as East Carolina University (NC), the Pasco-Hernando School District (FL), and Case Western Reserve University (OH), undertook pilot programs to test the viability of using e-readers and iPads for classroom activities. However, numerous organizations, including the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and the American Council of the Blind (ACB), representing individuals with print disabilities claimed that e-readers, including the third-generation devices, do not meet requirements for accessibility as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and deny equitable access to digital resources.3 The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the NFB and ACB, sued four academic institutions for requiring the use of the Kindle DX as part of a pilot test for electronic textbooks, resulting in an agreement with the academic institutions to not require e-readers for students until such time as accessibility and functionality have improved for students experiencing loss of vision.4 As recently as May 2012, the NFB assisted public library patrons in Philadelphia to file suit against the Free Library of Philadelphia, asserting that Barnes and Noble’s NOOK Simple Touch e-reader is inaccessible to blind patrons, denying these library users equal access to resources.5 Each of the lawsuits claims that the public institution’s decision to purchase the inaccessible e-readers violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Due in part to the rapid development and deployment of the e-readers limited studies have been conducted on the usability and functionality of the devices by individuals with print disabilities (i.e., low vision, no vision, dyslexia, etc.) particularly within library and educational environments. Phase One of this study explores the functions and features of three popular e-reading devices to determine the level of accessibility for individuals with print disabilities and the viability of their use within academic settings and libraries. 2 Lee Rainie. 2012. “Tablet and E-reader Ownership Nearly Doubled over the Holiday Gift-Giving Period.” Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/01/23/tablet-and-e-book-reader-ownership-nearly-double-over-the-holiday-gift- giving-period/ on April 14, 2012. 3 See for example, Don Reisinger. 2009. “Universities Reject Kindle over Inaccessibility for the Blind.” CNET. Retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10396177-1.html on January 27, 2012. 4 Grant Gross. 2010. “Kindle in Classroom Hurts Blind Students, DOJ Warns.” Computer World. Retrieved from http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9144418/Kindle_in_classroom_hurts_blind_students_DOJ_warns?taxonomyId=13&pageNumber= 1 on April 14, 2012. 5 Meredith Schwartz. (2012) “Blind Patrons Sue Philly Library for Loaning Inaccessible Nooks.” Library Journal. Retrieved from http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/05/industry-news/blind-patrons-sue-philly-library-for-loaning-inaccessible-nooks/ on May 14, 2012. 2 Literature Review The research on the use and functionality of e-readers falls into three broad categories: product comparison between competing devices; evaluation and user preferences, including user behaviors and attitudes; and, design of e-readers and e-books. Product comparison studies examine specific features of each device. Ralph Scott (2010) examined the iPad (Apple), Kindle (Amazon.com), and the NOOK (Barnes & Noble) for consideration as part of a potential e-reader circulation program at East Carolina University. Among other features, Scott measured issues related to Wi-Fi access, availability of USB ports, price and availability. His assessment indicated that the iPad was far superior to the other products due in part to its availability of images, audio, and video despite the price of the iPad being much higher than the other devices ($500 per unit compared to $199 for the Kindle or the NOOK).6 Several studies explore user experiences and functionality of e-reader devices. Gibson and Gibb (2011), for example, found that while many of the issues related to the first-generation of e-readers were addressed, additional challenges were expressed by users, including functionality of turning electronic pages and zooming of text for ease in reading. Users also reported that learning to use the e-readers was not intuitive and involved a steep learning curve.7 Shelburne (2009) and Nelson (2008) both discovered that e-book usage was on the rise in academic libraries, but that functionality of e-readers was not problem-free. The users wanted greater flexibility in searching within the text of an e-book and they cited poor quality in the screen displays of text. However, both of these studies indicated that e-books and e- readers are increasing in demand among academic library users.8 Much of the research on e-reader devices as used by consumers with print disabilities falls into the category of product comparison. Amy Mason (2012), for example, compares several e-readers for their accessibility by individuals with sight impairments.9 She examined several e-readers currently available and found many lacking in accessibility due to 1) the highly visual nature of most e-reader interfaces, and 2) the limitations of digital rights management that prevents text from being read aloud. In a similar vein Petri (2012) and Burton (2011) each examine the functional criteria for accessibility of e-books and e-readers, and make recommendations for design improvements to meet the needs of individuals with vision loss.10 Petri and Burton identified many of the same types of challenges that Mason discussed. Each of these assessments point to specific features which are not accessible 11 according to the United States Department of Education guidelines. 6 Ralph Scott. (2010). “An iPad, a Nook and a Kindle.” North Carolina Libraries 68 (Summer 2010), 29-30. 7 Chris Gibson and Forbes Gibb. 2011. “An Evaluation of Second-generation Ebook Readers.” The Electronic Library 29(3), 303-319. 8 See for example, Wendy Allen Shelburne. 2009. “E-book Usage in an Academic Library: User Attitudes and Behaviors.” Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services 33, 59-72; or, Mark R. Nelson. 2008. “E-books in Higher Education: Nearing the End of the Era of Hype?” Educause Review (March/April 2008), 40-56. 9 Amy Mason. 2012. “Mainstream Access to E-books – What Works, What Doesn’t, and What Is Still Unclear.” Braille Monitor 55(1) (January 2012). Retrieved from http://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm12/bm1201/bm120tc.htm on April 11, 2012 10 See for example, Ken Petri. 2012. “Supplemental: Accessibility Issues in E-books and E-book Readers.” In No Shelf Required 2: Use and Management of Electronic Books.